At The Financial Times: the political apotheosis of Macron! A comment by Old Socialist

Any political cliche not articulated in this essay is just an oversight, to the apotheosis of Macron! Made apparent in the glut of ‘news stories’ vying for the attention of readers of this newspaper. This inane headline a glaring example, which could be used to describe almost any front runner, in hindsight :

The irresistible rise of Emmanuel Macron

That collection of cliches: the revenge of victims of Globalization i.e. ‘The Rebellion Against The Elites’, the defense of the Neo-Liberal Order, rather than that propaganda staple of the post war ‘Liberal Order’, and the political fiction of Macron as ‘Centrist’. While he is defined by the Neo-Liberalism Lite of The Clintons,Blair and Obama:  Macron’s recent, highly publicized conversation, with the former president establish his credential as an ersatz Centrist/Neo-Liberal!  That ‘Center’ has been corrupted by the Free Market fiction, that began with the political rise of Thatcher and Reagan, that reaches into the political present. Political myths produce more finely honed myths, in the interest of the temptations of the end point of attaining political power.

In the mood of celebration, here at The Financial Times, the question that is avoided at all costs is how is Macron to govern, without a party structure, if he is elected ? How can a reader be sure that Le Pen won’t win, given that the American polls announced that Clinton would be the winner and were proved to be wrong, even though she won the popular vote: do the French have an institutional impediment to too much democracy like the Electoral College? This election makes evident the fractious nature of French politics: Fillon and Mélenchon both getting 19% of the vote as just an example. Macron’s projected  Neo-Liberal ‘reforms’ will lead to trouble. That is a given!

Old Socialist


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.